Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?
Reason number 14 to love New York: “Because sometimes immense, gratuitous, noncontextual acts of real-estate ego don’t pan out.” Those adjectives belong to New York magazine, pointing out that Ratner’s “$4.2 billion, 22-acre combination of residential towers and office buildings, anchored by a basketball arena for the Nets, was supposed to completely transform downtown Brooklyn—with…
Reason number 14 to love New York: “Because sometimes immense, gratuitous, noncontextual acts of real-estate ego don’t pan out.” Those adjectives belong to New York magazine, pointing out that Ratner’s “$4.2 billion, 22-acre combination of residential towers and office buildings, anchored by a basketball arena for the Nets, was supposed to completely transform downtown Brooklyn—with seemingly little thought given to what it might do to the already paralyzed intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues.” Though the lawsuits against the project “never got any real traction,” they did indeed delay the project, they write, until the market changed. “At the moment, the old neighborhood is winning. Score two points for entropy.” Is this a victory for opponents? A pit-stop on the way to development? Construction may be a while off, but demolition is long underway.
Because Sometimes Immense, Gratuitous, Noncontextual Acts Of Real-estate Ego Don’t Pan Out [New York]
brokeland says “Dunce > BrooklynLove”
sheep confirmed, thanks for playing.
In a place where the infrastructure could be adequately expanded to alleviate the present day bottlenecking that makes Atlantic Ave a parking lot at certain times of the day, and where packing that many more people into that small a space won’t put more of a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. I confess- I don’t know where that would be but I do know that rush hour at the Atlantic Ave. station is already hellacious. As is traffic.
Yes- part was for people making less than that. My objection is to why people who are making 100,000 need housing subsidies? IMHO- they don’t. Whereas those who make half of that or less certainly do. I do- it’s a struggle for single people to make ends meets. food is more expensive, I don’t get the same tax breaks, I don’t get the same beneficial return on my tax dollars (no car, no kids) which pay for roads and schools for example. Now I should see my taxes go to help those with 100,000 incomes find a nice place to live?
More than that, Ratner offered “affordable housing” under pressure. He left himself an out also, so that he could build off site. If he ever got around to doing it. So since we know all that, worrying about the affordable housing that isn’t getting built doesn’t really bolster your argument.
Being anti-AY doesn’t automatically make us NIMBY. we’re fighting for good civic planning that’s sustainable and realistic. Superblocks, supersized- they’re great for Midtown Manhattan but as residential neighborhoods, they’re awful.They’re dehumanizing.
ENY –
its not about making money, its about making obscene money based on back room deals that are still getting uncovered daily.
if ratner lived in the area and his kids grew up there I would be much more willing to, as you are doing, look the other way.
As for a blank check, check out http://www.dddb.net and http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/
this project is nothing but a billion dollar blank check. how on earth do you see an arena owned by the city where every single dollar goes to the developer. look at the barclays 400 million and not a dime to the city.
just because ratner approached city official doesnt mean he gets a pass on everything.
let him risk his own $$, not ours. especially with the minimal upside for the city.
and just because developers are in the business of making money doesnt give them a pass on zoning, due process, etc.
put a large project there, but not a tumor.
read “the geography of nowhere” and understand your fate if you choose to ignore that which confronts you here.
/end rant
“ENY- not sure what you’re answering to. affordable housing that might or might not be built isn’t a plus for AY. Only because it wasn’t guaranteed.”
I didn’t say it was a plus. I said that ironically, there isn’t any “affordable housing” in the area now, and the stall/defeat/whatever of the AY plan guarantees one thing – there won’t be any built there in the near or medium-term future. Also, as you said, PART of the plan would have been set aside for those making $100K. Part, if I recall correctly was for folks making less than that.
Bkn4life, I do care about the debt my kids take on (indirectly) through city projects, but I don’t care if a “Cleveland-based company” or any developer for that matter – makes money. This is America – developers are in business to make money, which is OK. I agree there shouldn’t be a Robert Moses-style blank check, but I don’t agree that’s exactly what happened here. And I don’t necessarily have a problem with a “super-sized Brooklyn” in this relatively small area of a very large borough. As I said earlier, it’s on the edge of the downtown directly proper, with links to transportation. Where else would you put a large project in NYC?
ENY,
Less debt for your children to erase and less profit for the Cleveland based development firm. Ask Cleveland how they feel?
Better yet…
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/forest_city_officials_support.html
In short, the Robert Moses era is over. No need to substitute a private developer for the public one. In fact we should re-introduce public shaming on this one. Didn’t we elect Obama on the premise of no more of the the same old same old?
WE should all be aware of this type of shenanigans if we wannt a better Brooklyn, not necessarily a super-sized Brooklyn.
Just because the fight is ugly and possibly futile doesnt mean it shouldnt be fought.
Cue the Maryland 400. They should be rolling over in their graves about now.
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/053106/entefea173542_32080.shtml
ENY- not sure what you’re answering to. affordable housing that might or might not be built isn’t a plus for AY. Only because it wasn’t guaranteed.
the other point is that “affordable housing” sounds great but when a part of it is set aside for those making 100,000, I have a serious problem with subsidizing it. And if you remember, the affordable housing component for AY was pretty loosely defined in that respect. I make far far less than 100,000- I have never qualified for affordable housing. Why should AY be allowed that?
Dunce > BrooklynLove
“Why make that a point in your argument?”
Why not?? I paid a lot of rent to live there. I didn’t have the benefit of rent control, either. I was paying market rate, a lot of money for me. I culd have liced somewhere cheaper, but I felt it was important, as a single parent, to live in the best neighborhood I could afford at the time. I KNOW I would have appreciated some lower-cost options in that area at the time.
I really can’t understand the problem. The site is adjacent to Brooklyn’s downtown, over a major tranportation network and is at its center undeveloped. Yes, there would have been big traffic snarls, a lot like the streets around Times Square or Rockefeller Center. But this is NYC! What’s new about crowded streets?? I really think we could handle what comes – we always have. But, I’m not going to dedicate my life to fussing over it, either. It won’t be like I’m mising anything!
bkn4lfe, can you provide reasons why “your children” will be a winner? Really, why do you say this? I’d like to hear your explanation.
and east new york…
others are taking up the fight you could not possible have won prior.
your children will be a winner if the city’s budget is not boondoggled for this travesty.
its been a railyard for 100 years. a year or two more till ratner is out is a small price to pay for sensible – and not necessarily small – development.